Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

IO Files: US(P)/A/17

Memorandum for the United States Delegation to the General Assembly

secret

[Washington,] September 3, 1948.

Memorandum of Staff Conversations Between Canada, United Kingdom, [and] United States, at Ottawa, August 30–31, 1948

Subject: Forthcoming General Assembly

Participants:	Canada—Mr. L. B. Pearson; Mr. Escott Reid; Mr. Jerry Riddell; Mr. E. A. Cote; and others1
	United Kingdom—Mr. Gladwyn Jebb;2 Mr. G. E. Boyd Shannon, United Kingdom High Commissioner’s Office
	United States—Mr. Dean Rusk, Mr. Hayden Raynor3

At the beginning of the discussions, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Jebb and Mr. Rusk indicated that the discussions were to be considered informal and not committing the respective governments in any way. It was agreed that a preliminary interchange among the three governments represented would be very useful in working out the final positions which each might take at the forthcoming General Assembly.

The organization of the comments given below follows the outline furnished by the Canadian Representative as an informal agenda:

1. Organization of the Assembly

(a) President Mr. Jebb said that the United Kingdom supports Mr. Evatt and has so informed him. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Riddell indicated that Canada had serious reservations about Mr. Evatt and doubted that he could be elected. Raynor and Rusk indicated that we would not favor the election of a Latin American, that we had some reservations about Mr. Evatt, and that we would prefer a French-speaking Western European, if a suitable candidate should come forward. We stated that we were particularly interested in the possibility of a Frenchman but recognized that the present Cabinet crisis would make it difficult to settle upon a Frenchman in the immediate future. Other names raised during the course of discussion were Bech, Romulo⁴ (mentioned by Pearson), Arce, Tsiang and Mrs. Pandit,⁵ with no strong preference for any of these expressed by any representative. Mr. Jebb indicated that he thought the precedent against a Big Five candidate should be maintained in the absence of special circumstances.

(b) Committee Chairman

Committee I

It was agreed that a suitable chairman could be found from among Spaak (if available), Padilla Nervo, Tsiang and Van Roijen.⁶ It was generally agreed that M. Spaak would be most acceptable if he should find it possible to serve. It was also agreed that the other three names represented entirely competent men for this post.

Committee II

It was agreed that Latin America might furnish a chairman for this committee, but no specific names were proposed.

Committee III

The possibility of Malik⁷ of Lebanon, a Greek, Romulo of the Philippines, or a Pakistani was discussed. There was a general feeling that either Malik or Romulo would be suitable for this particular committee although Mr. Jebb stressed Pakistan and did not seem to “warm up” to Malik.

Committees IV, V and VI

The discussion of these three committees overlapped, and was quite inconclusive. There was general agreement that Entezam,⁸ of Iran, would be suitable for the chairmanship of either Committee IV or VI. The United Kingdom maintained a preference on Committee IV of Canada with Entezam as second choice, and did not seem to buy our suggestion of a Scandinavian. Canada and the United States argued that Canada (Wilgress) would be much better for Committee V, but Jebb maintained the British position for a Slav and suggested specifically Vilfan,⁹ of Yugoslavia, who, he argued, was experienced and personally competent. When discussing the possibility of a Slav for Committee VI, the name of Lachs,¹⁰ of Poland, was mentioned. The British did not seem to feel that, as long as the Slavs had two seats on the General Committee, it was vital for them to hold a chairmanship, but we questioned that point of view.

Vice Presidents

The number of vice presidents would depend upon whether one of the Big Five is elected to the Presidency or a Committee Chairmanship. If not, there would be only two vice presidents, presumably going to a Latin American and a Slav (if they do not receive a Committee assignment). We stressed Romulo. The British stressed Pakistan and Greece.

[Here follows a short discussion of agenda arrangements.]

2. Elections

(a) Security Council. It was generally agreed that a strong effort should be made to retain Belgium’s seat in Western Europe and that Norway would be the best candidate. Doubt was expressed about the possibility of electing the Netherlands and Luxembourg was considered ineligible because of its size. Mr. Jebb expressed some misgivings about Sweden. It was recognized by all present that India might run a strong race for the seat being vacated by Belgium and that considerable political work would be required to avoid losing that seat from Western Europe. Jebb stated that the United Kingdom had suggested both to India and Pakistan that, in view of present conditions, they might wish to reconsider the wisdom of standing for the Security Council this year.

No final conclusion was reached regarding the seat being vacated by Syria. It was agreed that Turkey would be a suitable candidate and that it should not be supposed that that seat was reserved for an Arab State. Lack of agreement among Middle Eastern countries was noted. With regard to the seat being vacated by Colombia, the scarcity of good candidates was noted by all present. The idea that this seat might revert to Brazil or Mexico received strong support from both Mr. Jebb and the Canadians.

(b) Economic and Social Council. Mr. Pearson stated that he assumed China and France would be reelected “automatically” although members of his staff reminded him that Canada did not consider the reelection of the Big Five to the Economic and Social Council as an automatic matter. The great interest of Latin American States in membership in the Economic and Social Council was noted and it was assumed there would be no dearth of candidates for the seats being vacated by Chile and Peru. Mr. Pearson stated that Canada would not refuse to serve if elected but that it did not wish to press its candidacy. In any event, Canada did not wish to be in a position of interfering with the election of India to the Economic and Social Council, particularly if India were not elected to the Security Council. To a lesser extent, Pearson indicated this might also apply to Pakistan (Jebb indicated there was Pakistani interest). We reaffirmed our feeling that we would like to see Canada continue to be a member of the Economic and Social Council. Pearson concluded this aspect of the discussion by stating that the question of Canada’s position on this matter would be reviewed by their Cabinet prior to the opening of the Assembly. After noting the possibility of either Belgium or Sweden succeeding the Netherlands, Mr. Rusk pointed out the possibility of reelecting Canada and then electing India in place of the Netherlands, it was agreed that it would be useful to consult India on this membership problem. When Jebb mentioned Sweden as a suitable replacement for the Netherlands, we commented that, while we felt Sweden was entirely qualified for this post, we questioned whether this would be the right year for her election as Denmark would continue on the Council.

(c) International Court. Mr. Jebb was not briefed on this particular point. The United States and Canadian Representatives indicated that they felt they could support Mr. Reid [Read] (Canada), Su [Hsu] Mo (China) and Rau (India).¹¹

[Here follows discussion of political and security subjects and of organizational questions, portions of which are printed elsewhere in this volume.]

1. Mr. Pearson was Canadian Under Secretary of State for External Affairs and became Secretary of State for External Affairs on September 10. Messrs. Reid, Riddell and Cote were officers of the External Affairs Department.
2. Mr. H. M. G. Jebb was British Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Superintending Under Secretary for the United Nations (Political) Department of the British Foreign Office.
3. Both Messrs. Rusk and Raynor had been designated as Advisers to the U.S. Delegation to the General Assembly; later in the session Mr. Rusk was appointed Alternative U.S. Representative to the General Assembly.
4. Brig. Gen. Carlos P. Konmlo, Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations; he was to be Chairman of the Delegation of the Philippines to the Third Session of the General Assembly.
5. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Ambassador of India to the Soviet Union and Chairman-designate of the Indian Delegation to the Third Session of the General Assembly.
6. Dr. J. H. van Roijen, Netherlands Ambassador to Canada appointed member of the Netherlands Delegation to the Third Session of the General Assembly.
7. Dr. Charles Malik, Lebanese Minister to the United States and Representative-designate on the Lebanese Delegation to the Third Session of the General Assembly.
8. Mr. Nasrollah Entezam, Permanent Representative of Iran at the United Nations and Representative-designate on the Iranian Delegation to the Third Session of the General Assembly.
9. Mr. Joza Vilfan, Permanent Representative of Yugoslavia at the United Nations and appointed Alternate Representative on the Yugoslav Delegation to the Third Session of the General Assembly.
10. Mr. Manfred Lachs, Director of the Department of Justice in the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and appointed Alternate Representative on the Polish Delegation to the Third Session of the General Assembly.
11. In a follow-up conference in Washington on September 4 with only the British present the question of slates “was discussed only briefly. In answer to our inquiry, however, Mr. Jebb did state that the British were supporting Evatt in more than a nominal manner, bearing in mind considerations such as Commonwealth prestige . . . . There was complete agreement that Spaak was the most desirable candidate for the Chairmanship of Committee 1. At our suggestion the British promised to attempt to ascertain whether Spaak was in fact readily willing to take this assignment.” (Memorandum of conversation, September 4, 1948, IO Files, document US(P)/A/16)